Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

    New

    Edit by Mod: Please continue the discussion here: Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

    ----------------

    @Sinatra.SUN Can you please confirm if it is true or not? And if it is true can you take back your negative comments on my round table opinions and apologise?

    If this is true, then we can all see how couple people in the round table can affect the game..

  • New

    i am not on the round table. i left half a year ago because i felt it got stupid.

    i have heard this is legit, but i hope not as it would be the most stupid idea i can think of.
    5 Alliances will sit on the whole map, with rent systems to keep money flowing in from all guilds.

    i hope its a fake, but it might be that they listen to the few and the rountable who by nature pretty much all belong to the same large alliances that benefit from this.

    Its idiotic, and i hope its a fake - but time will tell.

    ps.
    the words does look like something they would write, but they typically wouldnt write "dear players", and it is a bit weird that korn or eltharyons name isnt shown. they are not at all solving the problem they wanted to solve, instead they will ensure that alt guilds now will reach gold instead.

    but honestly nothing can really suprise me as it is a tricky topic, and they are obviously concerned about the playerbase in general. Ill be playing nomatter what, and i like the game regardless although it does seem like its getting time to join a large alliance if this holds water.
    But game is amazing nomatter what, and thats the important thing.

    I dont agree with having 4-5 mega alliances sitting on it all, and that is why i doubt SBI really wrote this as they would very well know that it wouldnt change a thing.

    /F

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Sinatra.SUN ().

  • New

    Sinatra.SUN wrote:

    i am not on the round table. i left half a year ago because i felt it got stupid.

    i have heard this is legit, but i hope not as it would be the most stupid idea i can think of.
    5 Alliances will sit on the whole map, with rent systems to keep money flowing in from all guilds.

    i hope its a fake, but it might be that they listen to the few and the rountable who by nature pretty much all belong to the same large alliances that benefit from this.

    Its idiotic, and i hope its a fake - but time will tell.

    /F
    Thank you for your response,

    I am sharing the same ideas with you and hope this is fake..
  • New

    If its true , they will lose lot of playerbase. The game is just boring for anyone not in poe/arch/squak right now. It sad to see dev had lost spinal bone to 2-3 big cry baby and not give a f... about 80 % of the voting to remove alliance.

    1 % silver lost ? Who care . No one make money from silver pick on ground anyway. Do any sbi dev play the game at all ?
  • New

    Headquake wrote:

    If its true , they will lose lot of playerbase. The game is just boring for anyone not in poe/arch/squak right now. It sad to see dev had lost spinal bone to 2-3 big cry baby and not give a f... about 80 % of the voting to remove alliance.

    1 % silver lost ? Who care . No one make money from silver pick on ground anyway. Do any sbi dev play the game at all ?
    Its not 1%. Its 1% per extra territory, including outpost/castles, above 10. With the map as it is now, the megas would be in the 50-100% reduced range. It impacts fame rates as well and players will really feel that.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by SirusX715 ().

  • New

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small alliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday . Sbi need to be serious and stop asking the same people that just think on their personal interest and not give a fuck about the game future. Put a voting system in game and burn that round table and everyone sitting around.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Headquake ().

  • New

    The devs keep thinking that the territories is what drives the big alliances, and always forgets that its the wars and dominance that drives behavior.

    On this exact point they have been wrong 3 years in a row always making changes that they think drive player behaviour never understanding that the most significant driver in the game are the fights themselves.

    Territories are pretty worthless in queen, if this is true SBI continues the traditional mistake of having a basic understand of what drives the top alliances.
    I dont know how this can be, but i have learned to live with that over 3 years of albion.

    They wont change a thing with this, and they will get the alliance consolidation they said they wanted to avoid - but that's life and the game is great regardless.
  • New

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:


    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149



    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
  • New

    Expect to see lot of Player leaving. Trying to not hurt casual player ? Don't you see that already all small alliance/guild.are getting kick out of bz ? Look how many ho poe have destroy in 2 week. Wait 1 month and only them gonna have ho between lym and bridgwatch. At some point it will be too late because even if you broke alliance later all their old guild gonna have t3 ho all over the map and they will be almost impossible to push away.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Headquake ().

  • New

    Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:

    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149


    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    Hi Korn,

    How would an alliance cap harm casual players exactly besides most ppl (casuals and non casuals) getting kicked out of their current alliances duo to alliance space limit? (which is the exactly the point on getting and hard cap on alliances lol)

    Im what you could call a casual and Id be delighted to see alliances go. Im sure most of the people in favor of getting rid of alliances are what you'd call casuals.

    The only people you will be hurting by caping alliances are people who just sit in a mega alliances for the safety of it cause why wouldnt you(thats a problem too) and alliances that rely on huge numbers to control part of the game and limit content to anyone else.

    Also, you made a poll that cearly showed how a lot of ppl feel and you agreed to at least make a test and even gave us a date for it.

    The question I have is, are you back pedaling and canceling the alliance cap test?

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Amon ().

  • New

    Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:

    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149


    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    I'm a new solo player since ~2 weeks:
    • I can't venture into red/black zones as there are gank/zerg squads everywhere
    • PvE content above yellow zones is almost non-existent, as I have to risk dying every time I set foot into a solo dungeon - and blue dungeons in a black zone are straight suicide as the chances of getting scouted by a big guild + annihilated is way too high
    • Hideouts did sound decent on paper, but now big guilds have save zones everywhere in the black zone, and smaller guilds have close to no chance of even constructing one, even less defending it
    I ask again: how many solo gatherers/PvE/PvP players are on that round table/council, because it's quite obvious the only voice you're hearing are big alliances.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Lofthild ().

  • New

    How will the siphoned energy drain scale? 10 terri soft cap is too high. if you are expecting smaller alliances to make a living, you need to lower the soft cap. holding 10 terri is still a lot of zones for an alliance.

    Also, siphon energy are going to be so expensive if you implement this change. Please consider the economic impact on this as well. Maybe reduce the energy cost for different activities (i.e. overcharge, battler mount).